| |
O'Dog
Registered: Mar 2017
Posts: 11 |
Release id #165554 : Tacky +2HD
Always the same old discussion about what has to be credited as "crack". Even more confusing CSDb now uses different definitions for credits and release type.
There have been a lot of games which never had a protection and claimed to be cracked by someone (even by well known "real" crackers who were able to break protections). Do you plan to verify every crack entry if the original it was made from had a protetion to crack? Have a lot of fun with that. |
|
| |
Shine
Registered: Jul 2012
Posts: 327 |
A _crack_ for me was/is a program, who had a copy protection. (Maybe a password protection...)
A copy protection is something what can't be copied and running after copying 100% with a standard/native copy program.
If this is disabled by someone, i would call it crack.
Only my 5 cent... |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
The credit "Crack" is a credit. It shows if someone actually cracked something or not i.e. a protection. If the person trained something, add that. If he or she linked something, add that. It's the fine spectrum of an entry. Thus: just add "crack" as a credit if something was actually cracked, i.e. made copyable, copy protection removed.
The entry definition "Crack" is an umbrella definition to be able to run this database: It is a definition of a program or game that was cracked, manipulated, or released as a crack, with just added trainers or whatever. |
| |
O'Dog
Registered: Mar 2017
Posts: 11 |
Hell, it's your database. Tag the stuff as you like.
But it is not faithful to C64 scene tradition. Just to have that mentioned.
If you wnat it that fine I request "Hi-Saver" and "Level-Packing" credits. Otherwise there is no proper way to credit such things. "Crack" was fine for all kind of manipulation like hi-savers, different loading system, level-packing, one-filing or whatever. So you make things more complicated with the new definition IMO. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: Hell, it's your database. Tag the stuff as you like.
But it is not faithful to C64 scene tradition. Just to have that mentioned.
If you wnat it that fine I request "Hi-Saver" and "Level-Packing" credits. Otherwise there is no proper way to credit such things. "Crack" was fine for all kind of manipulation like hi-savers, different loading system, level-packing, one-filing or whatever. So you make things more complicated with the new definition IMO.
It's our database, not mine. Thus, I will forward your requests to Perff. If it's anyone's database, it's his. Don't shoot the messenger. |
| |
O'Dog
Registered: Mar 2017
Posts: 11 |
Easiest way would be to accept the usage of the "crack by" credit as is. It was used "wrong" for a lot of years now and from the release itself you need an old crack-dog to know if the original was protected or not. Some games were released in different compilations, with protection and without. Crackers often credited themselves for cracking if they just linked an intro, so it would require lot of investigation to check out what was really done to a game. I doubt that many uploaders have the knowledge for that. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
O'Dog: Still, you know what you cracked and not, so your entries should be easy to correct, yes? It would be a good start, and the point of this discussion in the first place. You will not see crack credits in GP, Ons, Triad or Excess releases if nothing was cracked, for example.
I am not pointing this out as an attack on you or LXT, I just try to start somewhere, and contemporary cracks seemed like a great start, as we often know if there was a copy protection or not. I actually started as some other users of CSDb pointed this out. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
who cares how csdb calls it anyway - what matters is what they call it on the top5 elite BBSs! |
| |
Goat
Registered: Oct 2007
Posts: 42 |
Quoting hedningYou will not see crack credits in GP, ... if nothing was cracked, for example.
I'm just curious: so these games for example really had a protection that needed to be cracked?
Chain Reaction
Plop
Catch 2 +2
Or this preview? Balla Balla Preview |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
The two first ones were cracked from tape originals, if I remember correctly, yes. The older GP cracks were added to the database by others long ago, but I will correct them when I find them. Perhaps you could find more? Thanks for pointing them out. |
| |
O'Dog
Registered: Mar 2017
Posts: 11 |
Why invent new rules? It is C64 scene tradition to call everything changed to an original game "cracking", protected or not (ask CZ). People I spotted nitpicking about that were demo sceners or new sceners who don't know or don't care about tradition.
Calling the installation of a hi-saver simply "linking" does not reflect the work done either. Please just respect tradition and leave it as is. It is easier to have such an "umbrella credit" than adding special credit for everything a cracker might have done to a game. No uploader will examine the details anyway. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: Why invent new rules? It is C64 scene tradition to call everything changed to an original game "cracking", protected or not (ask CZ). People I spotted nitpicking about that were demo sceners or new sceners who don't know or don't care about tradition.
Calling the installation of a hi-saver simply "linking" does not reflect the work done either. Please just respect tradition and leave it as is. It is easier to have such an "umbrella credit" than adding special credit for everything a cracker might have done to a game. No uploader will examine the details anyway.
As I said I have forwarded the request to add "highscore saver" and more stuff to the credits choices so that one can point out what has been done, but still the specific credit "crack" should be chosen if a copy protection was indeed cracked, as that is what "crack" means.
I don't get why you are fighting this. I have added well over 10.000 entries to this database for the last 10 years, and have only seen a broad understandment about this. This is actually the first time there is such an energy in defending a wrongly specified credit. Do you really want to be credited for cracking something when there was no cracking involved? People will keep on laughing. |
| |
O'Dog
Registered: Mar 2017
Posts: 11 |
It seems you don't get my point: I think you (the moderators) are overdoing with too detailed credits on cracks. Only few will figure out what a cracker exactly did with the game without digging too deep. I'd compare it with crediting each shown effect in a demo to a special coder in CSDb credits, e.g. "vectors by", "mega-dycp by". Got me? That's why I opt to stay with the general credit "crack" and done. Just want to keep life easier for you and the uploaders: Upload a crack, the one who did it is credited for "crack" and maybe "trainer", finished, next.
Only few whiners and nitpickers really care if there had been some protection to crack. Go read the scrolltext or note for more detailed credits and hope they tell the truth. Invite those nitpickers to ckeck the 75.000+ cracks in CSDb and add detailed credits if they have nothing better to do. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 552 |
Just to add my own 2c here.
Back in the 80s/90s I did a few cracks myself and I can tell you that, at least with the swappers that I dealt with, expectations were high. We didn't simply link an intro on the front of a game and call it a crack, that's for sure - I'm sure that some groups did but, well, those groups would largely be ridiculed for that in others' scrolltexts, in the disk mags etc.
Some releases may have been mislabelled where there were, for example, improvements made to the loading system of a game - eg. where IFFL was added... but definitely no proper crackers would claim to have cracked a game where all they needed to do was to copy a file from disk, pack it and link an intro on the front.
I know the scene was rough on crackers as I screwed up a release and was flamed for it (Indiana Jones .. I was the only member of the team that could do multi-load cracks at the time .. sadly, I didn't notice that there was a graphics glitch on level 2 caused by my changes).
So yeah, Hedning is right, "proper" cracks would need to actually be cracks. |
| |
Slator
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 273 |
well, honestly, a "crack" was just a label for a game release by a cracker group, may it have actually been cracked in the sense of protection disableing or just intro linking.
The term "cracked by" was more like "work done by", whatever you did. It was just a standard term used. Some people wrote "released by" sometimes, I did that for some Game On/Magic Disk games as I didnt "crack" them, but that is nitpicking.
If you are bored then get a life and maybe not redo every entry for just nitpicking over others, there are not many people out there caring for such info me thinks :D
People who actually have a clue and/or a cracker background will most likely know which games were protected and which not.
I don't see a point in doing this work. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Spending energy on making this database better and more accurate is what you should do here. That is the main purpose having an account here. I am only interested in the accuracy of the database. It's not about scene politics and/or anything else. I am not attacking other groups or anything else.
My interest here lies in to be as exact as possible, and the credits is the key to that. It's a lot of work to "correct" entries, but that is what this place is all about. I have spent 10 years here, uploading and researching >10.000 releases. Instead of spending energy on modern day scene politics and stuff, helping the database grow and be more accurate is what people should spend their energy on here, in my view. |
| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 479 |
I support what O'Dog and Slator pointed out. You can overdo accuracy. You can also transfer whole detailed credits for e.g. Comaland from the note for each part like O'Dog mentioned, but would that make sense?
Slator had the right words for it IMO:
The term "cracked by" was more like "work done by", whatever you did. It was just a standard term used.
That should be enough for a CSDb entry. For me the current credit "Crack" is good as is, no change or extension needed. To be used as Slator wrote. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: I support what O'Dog and Slator pointed out. You can overdo accuracy. You can also transfer whole detailed credits for e.g. Comaland from the note for each part like O'Dog mentioned, but would that make sense?
Slator had the right words for it IMO:
The term "cracked by" was more like "work done by", whatever you did. It was just a standard term used.
That should be enough for a CSDb entry. For me the current credit "Crack" is good as is, no change or extension needed. To be used as Slator wrote.
One could also check Tacky+2HD intro scroll: It mentions no credit for cracking. But it do credit trainer, hi-saver, bug-fix and linking. Just wanted to point that out.
And if accuracy and research is not what this place is about, we should lift out the archive, and just keep the forum and quasi facebook debates. I'm dead tired of debating people who fight wind mills. The energy should be put into making this archive better every day. If people in here have the attitude: "get a life" and "what does it matter", go to IRC or other places and rant there. |
| |
O'Dog
Registered: Mar 2017
Posts: 11 |
Debating this with you is infact fighting windmills, because you don't get my point: Keep it simple and keep detail to a level that makes sense. You will not find that detailed credits everywhere. It has nothing to do if I have really "cracked" something or not. It is just the common standard phrase from scene history for what ever a cracker has done... but if CSDb really wants to invent the wheel again... so be it! |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
so after over 20 years you find out that csdb names some things different than what your personal pet theory calls them?
GOOD WORK
at the end it doesnt even really matter. what matters is that everyone uses the same rules and naming schemes - not what exactly those rules are. deal with it.
and as others said already... it doesnt really clash with "traditions" either. even in 1985 ppl called things "cracks" where nothing was cracked in the first place. and even in 1985 ppl using "linking" and "packing" (the later even was a discipline of its own for a while). that YOU didnt do it doesnt really matter.
if only the energy in this thread had been put into making a release that is even worth such a thread. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Whole lot of blablabla.
Crackers can do whatever they want with this stuff. They did it in the past many many times. Conformity will struggle as opinions differ. I think write it in the scroll text the way you want, what happens on a DB like this, forget about it. :D |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4595 |
Quote: Whole lot of blablabla.
Crackers can do whatever they want with this stuff. They did it in the past many many times. Conformity will struggle as opinions differ. I think write it in the scroll text the way you want, what happens on a DB like this, forget about it. :D
Yes. Call it what you want in your scrollers. If you want to call linking cracking in your scroller - nobody will complain (but people will laugh of course, and mock you. IRC is a good place for that ;)). But in a database of this kind we need to be exact, and we do have people here that actually knows if there was cracking involved or not. The facts of the database should not be debateable. We, the users signed up here, should all help the database to aim for preciseness. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Well, don't think anyone questions on when a protection was cracked or a protection did not exist etc. But more, that the word crack has indeed been used many many times as a reference to modification of some kind. |
| |
Goat
Registered: Oct 2007
Posts: 42 |
Then please add at least these new credit categories instead of simply "crack": unpacking, password removing, improving, shortening, high saver including, onefiling, levelpacking, including picture, changing device number, etc... and maybe even unboxing the original, inserting the disk correctly, eating and farting. |
| |
Compyx
Registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 631 |
Quoting Goatfarting.
+1 |
| |
Mr.Ammo
Account closed
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 228 |
Best thing to do is to break with traditions. Traditions are holding back progress.
Not sure if CSDb needs or even wants to be a meta-data database. It's an archive for releases as I have been told numerous times and it's doing a pretty good job at that. |
